Agenda item

(16/01965/FULL1) - Farnborough Primary School, Farnborough Hill, Orpington BR6 7EQ

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing classroom extension, erection of two storey classroom extension, refurbishment of existing school buildings, provision of two temporary classroom buildings, bike store, refuse store and two sheds, with additional car parking and associated landscaping to enable expansion of school from 1 form of entry to 2 forms of entry.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Robert Evans, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Evans also spoke on behalf of his fellow Ward Members, Councillors Charles Joel and Tim Stevens.  The application had been deferred without prejudice at Plans Sub-Committee 2 on 14 July 2016 in order to request further clarification of the data provided in the Transport Assessment in relation to traffic and parking figures, along with more detailed information on the traffic solutions being proposed. 

 

Councillor Evans said that the applicant had not updated the transport data, in particular, the current pupils’ mode of travel, the accurate number of walking pupils and the staff travel arrangements.  Councillor Evans envisaged that if the application were permitted the number of cars in and out of Farnborough Village could double.

 

With regard to the second reason for deferral, no information had been submitted by the applicant with regard to potential traffic solutions and Councillor Evans could not envisage a solution to the traffic problem and that overall the reasons for deferral had not been addressed by the applicant.

 

Councillor Evans referred to the Clarification of Evidence Report submitted by Farnborough Village Society on 14 October 2016.  Farnborough Primary School was cited on the only main road in and out of the Village and the residents’ lives were blighted by school traffic. Councillor Evans appreciated the strategic need for school places but that the opposition to the application was overwhelming.

 

The Chief Planner reported that further objections to the application had been received and sample letters had been circulated to Members. Also a letter dated 3 November 2016 addressed to the Chief Planner from Robert Bollen, Head of Strategic Place Planning for the London Borough of Bromley, had been received and circulated to Members.  The letter addressed points raised within the Clarity of Evidence Report submitted by Farnborough Village Society and the Evidence of Need for pupil places in the Village.

 

All the Members accepted the need to provide school places for young children. 

 

 

Some Members considered the proposed development was inappropriate in the green belt and would have a serious detrimental effect on the village amenity due to additional traffic and insufficient parking and they recognised the importance and value of village life.

 

Other Members referred to the Local Plan and the desperate need for school places in the Village and it was their statutory duty to provide school places and were in strong support of the application.  They recognised that the proposed development had some faults but it had a low footprint, not visible from the street scene, and they felt the applicant had done as asked.

 

Councillor Kathy Bance supported the application being a Member of the Education Select Committee.

 

Councillor Michael Turner put forward a motion for refusal and Councillor Russell Mellor seconded it.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

 

1.  The proposed development is considered to be detrimental to highway safety and residential amenity by virtue of increased traffic congestion, inadequate on-site parking provision and increased levels of on-street parking contrary to Policies T18 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

2.  The development of this site as proposed is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, is not clearly outweighed by any educational or other benefits that would arise. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist. As such the proposal is not sustainable development and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policies 7.16 of the London Plan (2015) and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

 

The vote was 3:3 and the Chairman took her casting vote for refusal.

 

(Councillors Nicky Dykes, Kathy Bance and Neil Reddin wished their votes for permission to be recorded.)

 

Supporting documents: